4.5 Article

Marginal bone loss at implants with different surface characteristics - A 20-year follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 480-487

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13145

Keywords

bone loss; clinical; dental implants; long-term follow up; radiology

Funding

  1. Astra Tech AB (Dentsply IH)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveThis report is a 20-year follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the potential long-term effect of a modified implant surface on the preservation of the peri-implant marginal bone level. Material & MethodsIn each of 51 patients and for each fixed partial denture (FPD), by randomization at least one implant installed had a non-modified turned surface and one a modified and roughened surface (TiOblast((R))). Clinical and radiological examinations were performed at various follow-up intervals. Primary outcome variables were peri-implant marginal bone level change from time of loading and proportion of implants with no bone loss at 20years. Multilevel analysis followed by nonparametric and Pearson's Chi-Square tests were applied for statistical analysis. ResultsAt the 20-year follow-up, 25 patients carrying 64 implants were available for evaluation. Turned and TiOblast implants presented with a mean bone level change from the time of FDP delivery amounting to -0.41mm (95% CI -0.84/0.02) and -0.83mm (95% CI -1.38/-0.28) respectively (inter-group comparison p>.05). 47% of the Turned and 34% TiOblast implants (p>.05) showed no bone loss. All but one of these implants were free of bacterial plaque and inflammation as well as presented with probing pocket depths 5mm at both the 5- and 20-year follow-up examinations. ConclusionIt is suggested that a moderate increase of implant surface roughness has no beneficial effect on long-term preservation of the peri-implant marginal bone level.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available